Author Topic: Sandra's exit - The real reasons  (Read 118234 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #285 on: July 15, 2021, 12:38:12 PM »
All that effort and for what, to try to take Janine Jones and Steven Kelly’s words, the words that are in their very first statements, the words that mirrored Luke’s and  make them unsay them. It didn’t work in court when Janine was tied in knots by DP and it won’t work now. 40 yards beyond, 20ft, parallel…no one cares. The Crown’s case was that Luke went over the wall spontaneously with nothing to lead him to that spot. From their first statements the three youths described the dog alerting. That’s all that really matters…so type away furiously….it’s your time that you are wasting, but it won’t change that from the very start the Crown had a huge hole right in the middle of their case and nothing that came afterwards was ever able to fill that.

‘ Mr Turnbull told the jury that the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.’

But the family’s account wasn’t consistent. It wasn’t then and it certainly isn’t now.


Excellent - top of the class for confirming LM was talking nonsense. It does not get any plainer when one is being told that no one is interested in what Mitchell claimed. That it does not matter what any witness said, other than dog, pull and wall. Where there couldn't be a clearer case of dog whisperer. I'm surprised you haven't got a translated statement from Mia herself.  It is hardly surprising that this Jigsaw can not be completed. Almost like a puzzle for the dyslexic amongst us. Trying to force those mis-shaping pieces into place.

Let us yet again run through Mitchells lies, and how that dog did have to be where he claimed. For approaching this V, going to this V with his dog on the way down this path - only confirms Mitchells other lies more clearly. That he knew that strip of woodland like that back of his hand, he knew exactly where Jodi lay, he had left her there after murdering her. We already know to this point that Mitchell had been prepped and ready, on that path in a flash. That he had already introduced the notion of the woodland into the search at the Gino spot. That upon reaching that second break in the wall, exactly as the search trio said in that first statement. Mitchell physically entered the woodland. So it's not a case of no one cares about Mitchells lies, it's about no one caring what the dog was doing at this V break. Led or not by it's master. A dog, scenting other dogs, wildlife, obeying it's master. Who would have thought, eh? More so when we had Mitchell on this path for around 20mins prior to the search trio arriving. Where people very much cared about his lies, of the lives no doubt saved, due to caring.

And do we take the interpretation of witness statements, of their wrongful inference - when we have someone who interprets "I know where you stay" into "I am going to kill you".

Do we just ignore these vital witnesses, being taken back to RDP, when that fog had lifted a little. In the dark, re living that awful night. Clarifying that Mitchell had not walked past the V, clarifying that at all times Mitchell was leading his dog, firmly on that leash. That both him and his dog had went straight to this V, as they had always said. And that clear clarity brought by Mitchell himself, when being asked about turning directly left. Of his dog being almost parallel to where Jodi lay in the wood, as reason as to why he knew exactly where to go. That he stepped into that woodland, with complete ease, familiarity, no trepidation - Mitchell had been over that V many times before, as recent as 5pm that evening that we know of. Possibly other times over the course of the night.

So scrape away at interpreting those statements to suit, by changing Mitchells to tie in with the search trio. Of those blatant attempts to pull away from him, to the condemning evidence, he himself gave. By implying that the search trio lied, for it can only ever be, to imply. By asking the gullible to ignore every single blatant lie Mitchell told, frantically scraping at the pit of that barrel, in the hope one day there just might be something there.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #286 on: July 15, 2021, 12:41:09 PM »

So a change in a statement automatically constitutes a lie?

When three people change their statements in the same way then yes.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Paranoid Android

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #287 on: July 15, 2021, 02:37:09 PM »
That logic doesn't necessarily follow.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #288 on: July 15, 2021, 04:57:21 PM »
That logic doesn't necessarily follow.

How so?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #289 on: July 15, 2021, 06:01:24 PM »
Was I overly tired rambling? I'm sorry. Send me formula milk and disposable nappies please. Sorry, nonetheless. Where were we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #290 on: July 15, 2021, 06:07:42 PM »
Was I overly tired rambling? I'm sorry. Send me formula milk and disposable nappies please. Sorry, nonetheless. Where were we?

The jacket! I remember now. The hip length, fishing style jacket that LM never owned apparently. 

Offline rulesapply

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #291 on: July 15, 2021, 06:11:45 PM »
The jacket! I remember now. The hip length, fishing style jacket that LM never owned apparently.

But I believe he had a parka. And I believe the reason that nothing is ever in the public domain is because it would be damning to SL to have everything in the public domain.

Offline rulesapply

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #292 on: July 15, 2021, 06:26:26 PM »
When three people change their statements in the same way then yes.

I believe that if there were statement changes then the newer statements were the accurate statements. Not the other way around.

Offline Dexter

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #293 on: July 15, 2021, 06:38:53 PM »
I believe that if there were statement changes then the newer statements were the accurate statements. Not the other way around.

Why do you think that?

Offline rulesapply

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #294 on: July 15, 2021, 06:46:58 PM »
Why do you think that?
Because I think LM murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones.  He knew exactly where she was and I believe he implied/inferred what happened when she was found to the rest of the search party but I believe that when emotions weren't so high and f****d up that the other three realised that LM had fann**d them. I think the police knew from the beginning. I believe that if there was a change in statements it was to amend them to be accurate.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #295 on: July 15, 2021, 06:51:01 PM »
I believe that if there were statement changes then the newer statements were the accurate statements. Not the other way around.

That’s not what the experts say.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #296 on: July 15, 2021, 06:54:06 PM »
That’s not what the experts say.

The documentary experts? I've heard what they say and I have the audacity to disagree.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #297 on: July 15, 2021, 06:56:38 PM »
Because I think LM murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones.  He knew exactly where she was and I believe he implied/inferred what happened when she was found to the rest of the search party but I believe that when emotions weren't so high and f****d up that the other three realised that LM had fann**d them. I think the police knew from the beginning. I believe that if there was a change in statements it was to amend them to be accurate.

Explain to me how Steven Kelly describes Mia pulling Luke to the wall and alerting to the other side then suddenly forgets all about it? Amnesia, early onset dementia ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Dexter

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #298 on: July 15, 2021, 06:58:20 PM »
Explain to me how Steven Kelly describes Mia pulling Luke to the wall and alerting to the other side then suddenly forgets all about it? Amnesia, early onset dementia ?

I agree. It's most likely their first accounts would be more accurate before time and the words of others changes their recall

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sandra's exit - The real reasons
« Reply #299 on: July 15, 2021, 07:01:57 PM »
The documentary experts? I've heard what they say and I have the audacity to disagree.

And that’s your prerogative but you are not an expert, .so forgive me if I listen to those who are.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2021, 10:24:48 PM by mrswah »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?